This artice is free to access.
Background: Until recently a typical rule that has often been used for the endorsement of new medications by the Food and Drug Administration has been the existence of at least two statistically significant clinical trials favoring the new medication. This rule has consequences for the true positive (endorsement of an effective treatment) and false positive rates (endorsement of an ineffective treatment). Methods: In this paper, we compare true positive and false positive rates for different evaluation criteria through simulations that rely on (1) conventional p-values; (2) confidence intervals based on meta-analyses assuming fixed or random effects; and (3) Bayes factors. We varied threshold levels for statistical evidence, thresholds for what constitutes a clinically meaningful treatment effect, and number of trials conducted. Results: Our results show that Bayes factors, meta-analytic confidence intervals, and p-values often have similar performance. Bayes factors may perform better when the number of trials conducted is high and when trials have small sample sizes and clinically meaningful effects are not small, particularly in fields where the number of non-zero effects is relatively large. Conclusions: Thinking about realistic effect sizes in conjunction with desirable levels of statistical evidence, as well as quantifying statistical evidence with Bayes factors may help improve decision-making in some circumstances.
Van Ravenzwaaij, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2019). True and false positive rates for different criteria of evaluating statistical evidence from clinical trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0865-y